Author Topic: Slim Devices - Transporter (Read 7645 times)

SonicSound · « **on:** January 21, 2007, 06:24:38 PM »

I am so glad to see the marketplace producing equipment like this. I have always wanted easy electronic access to my recordings (especially 24bit) directly to my home play back system. This just might be the unit. I was hoping that it would accept an external D/A.

Does anyone have any experience with this unit or know of better alternatives?

bgalizio · « **Reply #1 on:** January 21, 2007, 07:44:49 PM »

Quote from: SonicSound on January 21, 2007, 06:24:38 PM

Does anyone have any experience with this unit or know of better alternatives?

I know there are differences, but what's drawing you to the Transporter over the simple Squeezebox 3?

bl6216@yahoo.com · « **Reply #2 on:** January 21, 2007, 07:49:28 PM »

All I can see that would make any one go with the Transporter over the Squeezebox 3 is that is dose up to 24/192. There are a lot of mod that some say make the Squeezebox 3 sound batter then the Transporter. Here is a link ( http://www.boldercables.com/servlet/StoreFront ).

Brian

bl6216@yahoo.com · « **Reply #3 on:** January 21, 2007, 08:00:42 PM »

Here is a post I saw on a page. http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/index.php?topic=31935.0

Nick's Picks · « **Reply #4 on:** January 22, 2007, 06:56:02 AM »

there are a few things...

the Transporter has a built in DAC, and according to Stereophile (front page of this month's issue), it is very good.
It also has volume control to some degree, so it could hypothetically be used as a preamp as well. So if you didn't already have a DAC, there could be some added value there.

SonicSound · « **Reply #5 on:** January 22, 2007, 08:25:06 AM »

How do "you" like the squeeze box? Any comp at 16bit squeeze box vs. your cd player? Also what DAC iare you using?

Brian Skalinder · « **Reply #6 on:** January 22, 2007, 10:50:47 AM »

Quote from: Nick's Picks on January 22, 2007, 06:56:02 AM

the Transporter has a built in DAC

As does the Squeezebox3. I use mine digi-out, so I can't speak to its quality.

Quote from: Nick's Picks on January 22, 2007, 06:56:02 AM

It also has volume control to some degree, so it could hypothetically be used as a preamp as well.

Again, as does the SB3.

SonicSound · « **Reply #7 on:** January 22, 2007, 12:16:53 PM »

What would be the sonic impact if I went with the SB3 and a very good external DAC? What SB3 mods would be recommended in this case? I still want to use my pre-amp.

cshepherd · « **Reply #8 on:** January 22, 2007, 12:34:57 PM »

All the wireless showings at CES sounded sub-par. It's a convenience thing. I was thoroughly unimpressed from a sound quality point of view.

Chris

Brian Skalinder · « **Reply #9 on:** January 23, 2007, 02:22:29 AM »

Quote from: SonicSound on January 22, 2007, 12:16:53 PM

What would be the sonic impact if I went with the SB3 and a very good external DAC? What SB3 mods would be recommended in this case? I still want to use my pre-amp.

If you're just running SB3 digi-out to an external DAC, I'd recommend no mods.

Nick's Picks · « **Reply #10 on:** January 23, 2007, 08:45:41 AM »

right..
that is another point that was made in the stereophile review.
the guy doing it runs a sb3>Xdac and says it rivals his $15000 other digital front end (some fancy CD player).

I didn't know the SB3 had gain?
the DAC in the sb3 is all BB basd 17xx chips, very decent sounding on its own.

pfife · « **Reply #11 on:** January 23, 2007, 12:25:04 PM »

Quote from: Nick's Picks on January 23, 2007, 08:45:41 AM

I didn't know the SB3 had gain?
the DAC in the sb3 is all BB basd 17xx chips, very decent sounding on its own.

I reckon its just volume control, no gain.

Nick's Picks · « **Reply #12 on:** January 23, 2007, 05:56:26 PM »

thats what I meant.

SonicSound · « **Reply #13 on:** January 23, 2007, 08:30:25 PM »

+Thanks for all the input. Looks like the SB3 + external DAC is the way to go for high quality playback. Any reason to opt for the transporter that I am missing?

Nick's Picks · « **Reply #14 on:** January 23, 2007, 10:22:32 PM »

it-goes-to-eleven · « **Reply #15 on:** January 24, 2007, 09:48:36 AM »

Quote from: pfife on January 23, 2007, 12:25:04 PM

Quote from: Nick's Picks on January 23, 2007, 08:45:41 AM

I didn't know the SB3 had gain?
the DAC in the sb3 is all BB basd 17xx chips, very decent sounding on its own.

I reckon its just volume control, no gain.

It is digital attenuation. So no pots or other BS in the audio path.

cshepherd · « **Reply #16 on:** January 24, 2007, 01:35:44 PM »

Digital attenuation reduces resolution when it is applied.

Chris

cshepherd · « **Reply #17 on:** January 24, 2007, 03:03:06 PM »

I'm not a technical person so I can't speak to the technical differences. Manufacturers of cd players with variable output stages have always recommended listening with the attenuation wide open. I've heard this for years. The resolution comment was also raised in the Stereophile article.

Chris

cshepherd · « **Reply #18 on:** January 24, 2007, 03:42:05 PM »

A good stereo system doesn't lose resolution as the volume goes down. In that situation, it's more about the ambient noise floor in the listening room. At 3 am, Pavarotti on my turntable with the volume just loud enough to hear it will keep anyone glued to the edge of their seat.

SonicSound, Your $40K system will never reach its potential with a $300 wireless consumer device acting as your front end. I'm not suggesting the SB3 is a waste of time, but wireless is a limiting factor in sound quality. I would take a $1000 Rega Apollo CD player and a dithered 16 bit source over a 24 bit source being played wirelessly if sound quality were the top priority.

Chris

cshepherd · « **Reply #19 on:** January 24, 2007, 06:00:37 PM »

There were several prominant rooms with pc-based front ends. I'm pretty sure I even saw a Slim Devices unit or two. Why do you say that nobody should use a squeezebox on a trade show floor?

Thinking about it more, it's hard to say if the pc based systems we heard were wireless or not. Regardless, not once did we say 'WOW!' in those rooms. That's the kind of response we look for when listening to systems that cost more than cars. The only reason I'm bringing it up is because SonicSound is building a system that could easily be on a showroom or trade show floor. Our experience has been that systems of this caliber do not produce exceptional sound with pc-based playback.

Chris

cshepherd · « **Reply #20 on:** January 24, 2007, 08:37:08 PM »

We listen for what we consider to be good sound at CES. We made a concerted effort to go into every room at the high performance audio show. I don't have any direct experience with the squeezebox because I'd rather spin records at this point in my life. The amount of music on my hard drive is at an all time low. l do have experience listening to various manufacturers putting their best foot forward with server-based music (wireless or not). We didn't hear anything special from those rooms at the show this year. I think that experience relates to SonicSound's playback system and what he is asking about in this thread. Stereophile didn't think it was better than a dedicated disc player either. The reviewer bought it so he wouldn't have to change cd's (let alone flip records) while he's working. The squeezebox is great for a lot of things, but it's not designed for a reference hi-fi system.

Chris

From the summary of the 9/06 article http://www.stereophile.com/digitalprocessors/906slim/

"While the Slim Devices Squeezebox with stock power supply (footnote 1) offers generally good performance from its analog outputs, it was the sound it produced driving a high-end DAC from its digital output that persuaded me to purchase the review sample. While I still turn to a dedicated disc player for the highest sound quality, much of my listening to music is done while I'm doing something else—writing, editing, reading—and for that, the Squeezebox has become my primary source. As I wrote in the mid-April eNewsletter, "physical discs seem so 20th century!" Very highly recommended.

pfife · « **Reply #21 on:** January 24, 2007, 10:00:23 PM »

why would an SB3 be worse than any other unit used going digital out to a sick dac?

cshepherd · « **Reply #22 on:** January 24, 2007, 11:08:18 PM »

Quote from: pfife on January 24, 2007, 10:00:23 PM

why would an SB3 be worse than any other unit used going digital out to a sick dac?

I would ask Stereophile for a technical response to that question. It's their article.

Chris

BC · « **Reply #23 on:** January 24, 2007, 11:38:50 PM »

Quote from: pfife on January 24, 2007, 10:00:23 PM

why would an SB3 be worse than any other unit used going digital out to a sick dac?

could clocking from the source come into play here? I would think that high priced disc transports must go to great lengths to ensure clock stability. Just a thought. I have no idea about how or if clocking issues change for optical disc vs HD based playback.

it-goes-to-eleven · « **Reply #24 on:** January 25, 2007, 09:00:03 AM »

Quote from: cshepherd on January 24, 2007, 08:37:08 PM

Stereophile didn't think it was better than a dedicated disc player either.

Again, incorrect. A single reviewer made comments on a brief review that was barely a page long (a single reviewer is not "stereophile"). Most of that "review" discussed setup, etc.

And that reviewer said of the $6K disc player "Perhaps there was an increased sense of authority to the sound of the CD played by the Ayre used as a transport, a better sense of extended low frequencies"

PERHAPS? That's just vague, wishy-washy, cover your ass, reviewer speak. Don't want to piss off the folks giving you $6K disc players and $17K DACs!

Daryan · « **Reply #25 on:** January 25, 2007, 02:40:25 PM »

Chris,

Your comments here are way off base IMHO (did I mention, IMHO

). I would put my modded sb3 with linear supply up against literally any transport less than 5 grand any day of the week and twice on Sunday. It really is that good. Stock, it sounds like a $1500 transport, no worse imho as long as you stick to the digital out. The analog out is kind of crappy, but with mods can be brought up to snuff quite easily. Wireless technology is not a hinderance at this point in sound reproduction whatsoever. In fact, I will send you my sb3 and power supply along with my cables I am using with it if you want me to, just report back here as to your findings and prove me wrong

I should mention, the power supply I am using costs more in parts then the sb3 does, so YMMV.

D~

cshepherd · « **Reply #26 on:** January 25, 2007, 05:26:32 PM »

I'm incorrect for quoting and agreeing with John Atkinson of Stereophile? Stereophile published the article / review. It's on their web site and written by one of their own. At least half the text was about how the unit sounded. You can't trivialize what is said on the basis that the review isn't 8000 words. The reviewer still turns to his disc player for best sound. Nothing wishy washy about that statement, which is essentially the same conclusion we came to at CES.

I'm somewhat curious about your offer, Daryan. It's nice of you to extend it, but I don't have an outboard DAC and I don't have any desire to hear its stock analog outputs. If you feel compelled to send your dac along with the SB3, Id be happy to listen to it and report back here. We have the Rega Apollo cd player at $1000 and the Sonneteer Byron cd player at $2500.

Chris